Filed 7/19/24 In re Michael C. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re MICHAEL C. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law

 B329287

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.N. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP03343A-C)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Temporary Judge. Dismissed in 

part and affirmed in part.

Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and 

Vincent W. Davis, for Defendant and Appellant N.N. 
2

Law Office of Robert McLaughlin and Robert McLaughlin, 

under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant K.R.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel and Sally Son, Senior Deputy County 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

As relevant here, N.N. (mother) has three children, 

Michael C. (born April 2013), Mia M. (born December 2016), and 

Kylie R. (born December 2020). K.R. (father) is the father of 

Kylie only.

Mother appeals the juvenile court’s orders declaring her 

three children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code1

sections 300, subdivision (b), and removing the children from her

custody under section 361. Father appeals solely from the 

dispositional order denying his request under section 361.2 for 

custody of Kylie, which father intends to exercise in New York 

where he currently resides. 

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (the Department) filed a motion to dismiss 

mother’s appeal, along with a request for judicial notice. 

We dismiss mother’s appeal and affirm the court’s 

disposition orders.

The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does 

not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with 

reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior 

Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264 [three-paragraph 

discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement 

because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s 

arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or 

principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] 

need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of 

the parties’ positions”].)

DISCUSSION

A. Mother’s Appeal is Dismissed

In her opening brief, mother challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional findings and its 

orders removing all three children from her custody.

At the adjudication hearing on March 23, 2023, the court

declared the children dependents based on the following amended 

jurisdictional allegations:

b-1, d-1, j-1: “[Father] sexually abused the child Mia. 

On or about 8/18/22 and on prior occasions, [father] 

fondled and digitally penetrated the child’s vagina, 

causing the child pain. The mother failed to protect 

the child when she knew of [father’s] sexual abuse of 

the child. The mother allowed [father] to frequent 

the child’s home and to have unlimited access to the 

child. . . .”
4

b-2, j-2: “On 8/19/2022, [mother] created a 

detrimental and endangering situation for the fiveyear old child Mia in that [mother] failed to provide 

appropriate supervision for the child, resulting in the 

child wandering the streets alone wearing only 

underwear and a blanket wrapped around herself. 

Such a detrimental and endangering situation 

established for the child by the mother, and the 

mother’s failure to provide appropriate supervision 

for the child, endangers the child’s physical health 

and safety, and creates a detrimental home 

environment, placing the child and the child’s 

siblings, [Michael and Kylie], at risk of serious 

physical harm, damage and danger.”

b-5, j-3: “[Mother and father] have a history of 

engaging in physical and verbal altercations while in 

the presence of the children. On prior occasions in 

2021, the mother and father engaged in verbal 

altercations. On prior occasions in 2021, the father 

attempted to punch the mother . . . . On 2/7/22, the 

mother and father engaged in a verbal and physical 

altercation where the father punched the mother 

once with a closed fist on the left side of her head. 

The father shoved the mother by the base of her neck, 

causing the mother to hit the fence with her 

back. . . . Such violent conduct . . . endangers the 

children’s physical health and safety, creates a 

detrimental home environment and places the 
5

children at risk of serious physical harm, damage and 

danger.”

The Department moved to dismiss mother’s appeal, arguing 

that all of mother’s contentions on appeal were either moot or 

nonjusticiable. In support of its motion to dismiss, the 

Department requests judicial notice of the following post-appeal 

orders by the juvenile court: 

1. On July 27, 2023, the juvenile court terminated 

dependency jurisdiction over Michael and made a 

custody order giving both parents joint legal custody, 

Michael’s father sole physical custody, and mother 

monitored visits. The custody order took effect on 

October 13, 2023, when the juvenile court lifted its stay.

2. On November 2, 2023, the juvenile court terminated 

dependency jurisdiction over Mia and made a custody 

order giving both parents joint legal custody, Mia’s 

father sole physical custody, and mother monitored 

visits. The custody order took effect on December 22, 

2023, when the juvenile court lifted its stay.

3. On February 27, 2024, the juvenile court terminated 

Kylie’s suitable placement order, and placed Kylie in 

mother’s home, subject to Department supervision.

“A reviewing court must ‘ “decide on a case-by-case basis 

whether subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter 

make a case moot and whether [its] decision would affect the 

outcome in a subsequent proceeding.” ’ ” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 

Cal.5th 266, 276.) Because the juvenile court has terminated 

dependency jurisdiction over Michael and Mia, mother has not 
6

appealed the court’s termination or custody orders, and mother 

has not filed any opposition to the Department’s motion to 

dismiss, we agree that the portions of mother’s appeal pertaining 

to those two children are moot. (In re Gael C. (2023) 96 

Cal.App.5th 220, 223–224 [dismissing appeal of jurisdiction and 

disposition orders as moot, where parent did not appeal 

subsequent termination of dependency jurisdiction and related 

custody order].) Even if we were to reach the merits of mother’s 

appeal as to the two older children, there was substantial 

evidence to support the appealed findings and orders, based on 

the children’s statements to social workers, regarding domestic 

violence observed between mother and father and mother 

permitting father to sleep in the same bed as Mia after reports of 

sexual abuse.

Mother’s appeal of the order removing Kylie from her 

custody is also moot, because Kylie has been returned to mother’s 

custody. (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60 [mootness 

turns on “whether the appellate court can provide any effective 

relief if it finds reversible error”].)

The only contention remaining in mother’s appeal is 

whether there is substantial evidence to support dependency 

jurisdiction over Kylie. However, the Department argues 

mother’s entire appeal should be dismissed, based on her failure 

to provide a summary of the significant facts in her brief and to 

articulate any cogent legal challenge to the second jurisdictional 

finding – that mother failed to adequately supervise Mia.

Mother did not file any response to the Department’s 

motion to dismiss, did not file a reply brief in support of her 

appeal, and did not request oral argument in this case. “A failure 

to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of 
7

the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) We agree with 

the Department that mother has forfeited any argument that we 

should reach the merits of her jurisdictional challenge. We see no 

reason in the current context to exercise our discretion to reach 

the merits of mother’s appeal. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 

287; In re Gael C., supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at pp. 224–225.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Order 

Denying Father’s Request for Custody

“When a juvenile court orders removal of a child from the 

custodial parent, it must determine whether there is a 

noncustodial parent who wants to assume custody. If so, the 

court must ‘place the child with the [noncustodial] parent unless 

it finds that [such] placement . . . would be detrimental to the 

safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the 

child.’ (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) A finding of detriment must be made 

by clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.] We review the 

juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence, 

‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof’ in the trial 

court.” (In re Solomon B. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 69, 74–75.)

Father has not appealed the jurisdictional findings against 

him. Nevertheless, father argues that aside from his status as an 

offending parent, there was insufficient evidence of detriment for 

the court to deny his request under section 361.2 to grant him 

custody of Kylie in New York. Father argues that his alleged 

sexual abuse of Kylie’s five-year old half-sibling Mia was not 

frequent or severe enough to support a finding that granting him 

custody of Kylie in New York would place her at risk of harm. He 

also argues that any risk posed by the domestic violence between 
8

him and mother was eliminated because he and mother have 

ended their relationship and he has moved to New York. 

Father’s argument misses the mark. Even accounting for 

the heightened burden of proof needed to support the trial court’s 

determination that placing Kylie in father’s custody would be 

detrimental to her safety, protection, and her physical and 

emotional well-being, the record includes substantial evidence to 

support the court’s order denying father’s request for custody of 

Kylie under section 361.2. Kylie’s young age, evidence of violence 

in father’s relationship with mother, and evidence that father 

sexually abused Mia, provides ample support for the court’s

denial of father’s request. The correctness of the juvenile court’s 

decision is further supported by the larger context, which 

included the absence of any real effort by father to engage with 

the Department outside of limited monitored visits, his move to 

New York just two months before the court’s disposition order, 

and his refusal to participate in any services during the six 

months leading up to the last part of the disposition hearing. 

Kylie was only 22 months old when she was detained from 

parental custody in August 2022, and father was not in contact 

with the Department until the day before his arraignment on 

October 19, 2022. He initially wanted a paternity test, stating 

that mother had told him Kylie was not his child. After the court 

ordered monitored visits between father and Kylie, father’s 

girlfriend refused to monitor the visits and father could not 

identify an alternate monitor for the Department. The 

Department arranged for video calls, monitored by Kylie’s 

caregiver, but father was not able to follow the visitation 

schedule despite efforts to accommodate him. The caregiver 

reported that on at least one video call, father appeared to be 
9

under the influence (his eyes were red) and he was distracted 

because he was walking around. 

Father did have consistent and positive in-person 

monitored visits from November 2022 through March 2023, but 

absent a court order, he declined to participate in any programs 

such as sexual abuse prevention or domestic violence batterers 

programs despite the pending allegations against him. Instead, 

he purchased a home and planned to move to New York with 

Kylie, although he was open to receiving family maintenance 

services in New York if Kylie was released to his care. His last 

in-person visit before moving to New York took place on 

March 22, 2023, and after that he was inconsistent with 

telephone visits.

The record evidence is sufficient to support the court’s 

determination that placing Kylie with father posed a risk of 

detriment.

DISPOSITION

Mother’s appeal is dismissed. The disposition orders are

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P.J. KIM, J.